Thursday, September 25, 2014

Science Has All Kinds of Non Scientific Influences and Motivations

Zombie Science

Philosophers of science well understand that everything from enticements (prestige, publishing, etc.) to threats (tenure, funding, etc.) influence scientists and science, but perhaps no one has said it better than Dr. Bruce Charlton:

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable – what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

Sound familiar? It may sound like a worn out cliché, but we need to follow the evidence and let science speak for itself.

Just the opposite. The evo-zombies and the global warming zombies have 100 times the funding of ID.

From the article: "...it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves." There are also 100 times the number of interested parties whose interests are served by keeping the evo/global warming religion "twitching and lumbering around".

So, this articles doesn't apply to ID at all.

I'm disappointed that you conflate "ID/creationism". It's as dishonest (and religiously bigoted) of you as it would be for me to conflate evolution with satanism which indeed some do.

Thanks for bringing us this essay. It's beautifully complete and concise.

There is one bright spot that wasn't yet apparent in 2008. Thanks to crowdfunding and 'making/hacking' trends, real science is starting to regrow outside the government and corporate monopolies.

The open question is whether the monopolies will manage to squash the real science by an outright Inquisition. So far the monopolies aren't trying very hard, but as the new real science starts to invade profitable realms of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, the danger grows.

Polistra, You touch on a very important point. The maker/hacking/internet education revolution currently underway is changing how people access information. Websites like this are plowing through all of the idiocy. Dr. Hunter continues to reveal details the layman would never approach through common media.Seems like an education reformation is underway.

Ah, yes, the good old conspiracy theory. I mean, it's so obvious that AIDS isn't really caused by HIV, that it's all a con got up by Big Pharma to sell more expensive drugs. And how can anyone doubt that 9/11 was a false flag op run by the CIA or Mossad, that Obama is a Kenyan-born agent of the Illuminati, that the Moon landings were faked using out-takes from 2001 and that global warming is just a marketing ploy to sell more air-conditioners.

Charlton is so right. All those scientists must be really dumb to believe in obviously flaky theories like relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution.

Always knew that germ theory was a bunch of hooey. Imagine a giant of a man brought down by microscopic bugs. No way!

Medical Hypotheses journal was not peer reviewed at the time the Charlton article was published, and was meant as a forum for unconventional ideas. Charlton was the sole editor at the time. When the journal published papers on AIDS denialism, it led to changes concerning review, and Charlton being sacked.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/